00016832 Mini RFP Final.docx

S017-DOJ061925

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

A&E and Related Services MINI-RFP/ OregonBuys Bid Solicitation Number: S-73000-00016832 for Work Order Contract (“WOC”) Assignment Under Price Agreement (“PA”) series Transportation Land Use Planning 2021 (TLUP ’21) B38909, B38913, B38914, B38916, B38917, B38918, B38922, B38923 and B38924

NOTE: Only Consultants that have been awarded a PA in the above PA series for the services identified in this Mini-RFP are eligible to respond to this Mini-RFP.

Project Name: City of Springfield Transportation System Plan

Project Location: Springfield, OR

ODOT Key Number: 22664

DBE Participation Goal: No Goal (see section 1.3 for more information)

Certified Small Business Aspirational Target: N/A (see section 1.3 for more information)

LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY PROJECT. ODOT is delivering this Project on behalf of the City of Springfield. The City of Springfield is responsible for the final selection and assignment of consultants, pursuant to ORS 279C.125 and OAR 731-148-0260 (see section 1.4 for more information).

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE: See “Bid Opening Date” for this Mini-RFP in OregonBuys.

Single Point of Contact: See “Purchaser” and “Info Contact”, including email address, for this Mini-RFP in OregonBuys. This is the only point of contact for this Mini-RFP. All inquiries regarding this procurement, whether relating to the Mini-RFP process, administration, deadline or award, potential COI issues, or to the intent or technical aspects of the Services must be submitted in writing via e-mail to the Purchaser.

Accessibility: The Oregon Department of Transportation is committed to complying with all statutory requirements to ensure that it is providing information that is more accessible to people with disabilities, as required by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), and 36 C.F.R. 1194 Appendix A. This includes information regarding the solicitation process. Please contact the Single Point of Contact (“SPC”) identified in OregonBuys as the “Purchaser” to request reasonable accommodation for access, due to a disability, to information related to this solicitation, or the solicitation process, or both. Accommodation requests must be received by the SPC 3 business days prior to the Proposal Submission Deadline (see “Bid Opening Date” in OregonBuys).

GOVERNING LAW: This Mini-RFP and the resulting WOC shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Specific laws and rules that govern the solicitation process are found in Chapters 279A and 279C of the Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”), and Chapter 731, Divisions 146 and 148 of the Administrative Rules (“OAR”) of the Oregon Department of Transportation. The solicitation and resulting WOC may be subject to other laws and rules.

Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: The State of Oregon (“State”) is committed to taking active steps toward increasing and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion values across procurement processes for minority, women, emerging small, and veteran-owned businesses by reducing barriers to compete for and be awarded state contracts. All eligible interested businesses are encouraged to submit bids for this contracting opportunity.

Non-Discrimination Notice: Oregon Department Of Transportation (“ODOT” or “Agency”) in accordance with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252. 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all eligible Bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that all eligible business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this solicitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.

SECTION 0.0 OREGONBUYS; SOLICITATION SCHEDULE

OregonBuys is the electronic procurement system used by Agency. This Mini-RFP is advertised in OregonBuys (https://oregonbuys.gov/bso/) as a Bid Solicitation, which is open only to registered vendors that have an existing PA, as identified on page 1, with Agency for the needed Services.

0.1 INFORMATION AND ATTACHMENTS INCORPORATED FROM OREGONBUYS

The Mini-RFP includes all documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, and any addenda thereto, used for soliciting Proposals. In addition to the provisions set forth and linked within this Mini-RFP, this Mini-RFP incorporates by this reference the information published on the OregonBuys Bid Solicitation page for this Mini-RFP, including but not limited to:

· Details entered in the Header Information section of the Summary Tab; and

· All attachments, Amendments, notices, question and answer documents, and any other files linked in the Attachments section.

0.2 CROSSWALK OF TERMS USED IN OREGONBUYS

Definition of terms used in OregonBuys.

Amendment means “Addendum” or “Addenda” as defined in OAR 137-046-0110(1).

Bid Opening Date means “Closing” as defined in OAR 137-046-0110(6).

Master Blanket Purchase Order (“MBPO”) means Any form of contract, agreement (i.e. price agreement, on-call contract, etc.), purchase order or WOC.

Quote means Any form of offer submission by vendors; i.e., Bids, Proposals, Price Proposals, or any other type of offer in response to a Bid Solicitation or Mini-RFP.

Vendor means Any form of business entity registered in OregonBuys. Only registered vendors are eligible to submit a Quote and enter into Purchase Orders, MBPOs, or Release Requisitions pursuant to a Bid Solicitation or Mini-RFP advertised in OregonBuys.

0.3 GUIDANCE FOR OREGONBUYS

For quick reference information regarding common questions from vendors when using OregonBuys, see User Guides under “OregonBuys eProcurement System” on the Contracting with ODOT webpage: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Business/Procurement/Pages/HowTo.aspx.

0.4 MINI-RFP SCHEDULE

All dates listed are subject to change.

Deadline for Proposal submittal See Bid Opening Date identified in OregonBuys for this Mini-RFP

1.1 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Agency means the Oregon Department of Transportation.

CA/CEI means construction contract administration / construction engineering inspection services.

Consultant means an architect, engineer, photogrammetrist, transportation planner, land surveyor or provider of related services, or entity which employes any of the foregoing, performing Services for Agency under a contract or WOC.

LPA means local public agency

NTE means not-to-exceed.

Proposal means a written response to this Mini-RFP.

Proposer means a vendor which submits a Proposal.

Services means the architectural, engineering, photogrammetrist, planning, land surveying or provider of related services, or combination of the foregoing, to be provided by the Consultant for the resulting WOC.

SOW means statement of work; part of a contract that outlines the tasks, deliverables, and timeline for the Project.

SPC means single point of contact; the Purchaser identified in OregonBuys.

State means the State of Oregon.

WOC means work order contract.

1.2 SUMMARY OVERVIEW AND WORK ORDER CONTRACT (“WOC”) OBJECTIVES

Oregon Department of Transportation (“Agency” or “ODOT") is requesting Proposals from eligible Price Agreement holders (identified above) regarding specific A&E and Related Services experience relevant to the City of Springfield Transportation System Plan (the “Project”), and as further described in Section 4. The expected outcome of the WOC is to update the City of Springfield’s Transportation System Plan. Agency reserves the right to modify the Services as necessary to meet Agency needs. The WOC is anticipated to start January 2027 and is expected to be completed by June 2029.

Proposers responding to this Mini-RFP do so solely at their expense. Agency is not responsible for any Proposer expenses associated with this Mini-RFP.

The selected Proposer and Agency will negotiate the delivery schedule, costs and final Statement of Work, within the scope of what is advertised here, for inclusion in the final WOC. Pending successful negotiations, the selected Proposer shall perform its obligations according to the WOC and applicable terms and conditions of the parent PA and exhibits thereto.

1.2.1 Funding Source(s).

FHWA

1.2.2 WOC Payment.

Payment will be made for completion of, or acceptable monthly progress on, tasks and deliverables in conformance with PA requirements and all applicable standards. The method of compensation will be determined by Agency and may be based on any of the following methods (may include more than 1 method – “Mixed”):

· Cost Plus Fixed-fee, up to a maximum NTE amount;

· Fixed Price for all Services; Fixed Price per Deliverable; Fixed Price per Milestone;

· Time and Materials, up to a maximum NTE amount;

· Price per Unit.

For further information see PA, Exhibit B, Compensation.

1.2.3 WOC Phases. - Reserved

1.2.4 Offer Period.

A Proposer's Proposal in response to this Mini-RFP is a firm offer, irrevocable, valid and binding on the Proposer for not less than 180 days following the Bid Opening Date for this Mini-RFP. Agency may request, either orally or in writing, that Proposer extend the offer period in writing.

Contingent upon Agency need and available funding, Agency may (for up to 9 months following the close of this Mini-RFP), in Agency’s sole discretion, make additional award(s). Agency may select the next ranked responsible Proposer who has submitted a responsive proposal (provided Proposer agrees to an extended offer period, which would cover the balance of the 9 months, if at that time the offer period stated in the paragraph above has expired or soon will expire), issue an intent to award. If agreement with that Proposer is not reached, Agency may offer award to the next ranked Proposer and so on until agreement is reached or until Agency terminates the process. Agency reserves the right to require confirmation of the qualifications of any Proposer.

· If a Consultant is performing or has performed preliminary or on-going services related to the Project for ODOT or a local agency in which ODOT is delivering the Project, the Consultant may be precluded from future work. See ODOT Conflict of Interest Guidelines.

· If a Consultant or an Affiliate of Consultant enters into a WOC or other contract for the purposes of administering, managing, monitoring, inspecting, evaluating compliance with or otherwise overseeing a public contract, that Consultant or an Affiliate of that Consultant will not be eligible to enter into a public contract that is subject to administration, management, monitoring, inspection, evaluation or oversight by means of the personal services. See ORS 279C.307 regarding possible Agency applications for exceptions.

· If a Consultant or any Affiliate of Consultant enters into a WOC or other contract with Agency for the purpose of advising or assisting in developing specifications, a scope or statement of work, an invitation to bid, a request for proposals or other solicitation documents and materials related to a given procurement, the Consultant may not be eligible to propose/bid on the prospective procurement (based on a case-by-case assessment by Agency).

· If preliminary engineering and final design will be performed under the prospective WOC, Agency is not obligated to proceed with final design for any alternative. All reasonable alternatives will be evaluated and given appropriate consideration, and Consultant may not proceed with final design until the relevant NEPA decision documents have been issued (e.g., Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or Record of Decision).

On October 3, 2025 the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued an interim final rule modifying the certification, compliance and reporting requirements of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program (DBE IFR). The DBE IFR was published in the Federal Register and took effect on October 3, 2025 (90 Fed Reg 47,969 (2025)). The DBE IFR requires the eligibility of all DBE certified firms to be reevaluated on an individualized basis, without reliance on race- or sex-based presumptions of disadvantage. The Oregon Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (“COBID”) administers the Unified Certification Program (“UCP”)for the State of Oregon and is responsible for performing the reevaluations and certifications of businesses that are certified under the DBE program. Pursuant to the DBE IFR, until the reevaluation process is completed, ODOT may not update its overall goal, set any contract DBE goals on federally funded projects or count any DBE participation toward DBE goals. In accordance with the DBE IFR, ODOT’s DBE requirements that were applicable to federally funded projects prior to the 10/03/2025 effective date of the rule are no longer in effect, and the DBE goal, reporting and compliance requirements set forth in this Contract are hereby suspended. Consultant acknowledges that the DBE goal and contractual requirements may be reinstated or modified for purposes of compliance with federal law as the DBE IFR is implemented. Consultant agrees to efficiently process any contractual modifications ODOT deems necessary or appropriate to effectuate the DBE Program resulting from the DBE IFR implementation or future modifications to the DBE Program and corresponding regulations.

The “Purchaser” identified in OregonBuys for this Mini-RFP is the Agency’s Single Point of Contact for this solicitation. All inquiries regarding this procurement, whether relating to the Mini-RFP process, administration, deadlines, award, potential COI issues, or to the intent or technical aspects of the Services must be submitted in writing via e-mail to the Purchaser. Failing to follow the foregoing requirements may result in Proposal rejection by Agency.

1.4.1 PROPOSER QUESTIONS, REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS/CHANGES, AND AGENCY RESPONSES All questions and requests for clarifications and changes must be received by the Purchaser via email on or before the deadline for Proposer Questions/Clarifications/Changes set forth in section 0.4.

Agency answers to questions received by the Purchaser will be posted in OregonBuys to ensure that all Proposers base their Proposals on the same information. Agency answers to questions will provide clarifications and interpretations but will not change Mini-RFP or contract requirements, unless an Addendum is issued (see section 1.4.2, below).

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSTED ON OREGONBUYS DO NOT AFFECT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MINI-RFP. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTUAL TERMS, AND PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS MINI-RFP CAN ONLY BE CHANGED VIA ADDENDA ISSUED BY AGENCY AND POSTED ON OREGONBUYS.

1.4.2 ADDENDA

Answers to questions or requests for clarifications or changes that Agency receives and that Agency, in its sole discretion, determines are substantive and provide new information, will be issued as official Addenda to this Mini-RFP. Changes or modifications to this Mini-RFP will be binding on Agency only if in the form of official Addenda issued by the Agency and published on OregonBuys in the Bid Solicitation Attachments section for this Mini-RFP.

1.5 PUBLIC RECORDS

After the evaluation/selection and negotiation process is complete, Proposals will be open to public inspection in accordance with ORS 279C.107. If a Proposal contains any information that may be considered exempt from disclosure under the various grounds specified in Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.311 through 192.478, the Proposer must clearly designate the portions of its Proposal that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure, along with a justification and citation to the authority relied upon. Proposer must also submit a second version of the Proposal with the text claimed as exempt from disclosure redacted. Application of the Oregon Public Records Law shall determine whether any information is actually exempt from disclosure. Identifying the Proposal in whole as exempt from disclosure is not acceptable. If Proposer fails to identify the portions of the Proposal that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure and the authority used to substantiate that claim, Proposer is deemed to waive any future claim for non-disclosure of that information.

1.6 LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY (“LPA”) PROJECT

Tier 1:

ODOT will conduct the first-tier evaluations from the Proposals received from the PA holders, using the pass/fail criteria to create a list of the qualified Proposers.

This is a local agency two-tiered Project being delivered by ODOT for the City of Springfield . ODOT will conduct the first-tier evaluation from the proposals received from the PA holders, using the pass/fail criteria to create a list of the qualified Proposers. The City of Springfield’s two-tier selection will be the highest-ranked firm identified by LPA during the Mini-RFP process, pursuant to ORS 279C.125 and OAR 731-148-0260. ODOT will negotiate the payment amount and methodology with the top-ranked Proposer (based on Final Score) that submits a responsive Proposal. If negotiations are not successful, ODOT may terminate negotiations with the top-ranked Proposer and may begin negotiations with the next highest-ranked Proposer and so on, until successful negotiations are completed or ODOT determines that cancellation of this Mini-RFP is in the best interest of the State.

SECTION 2.0 PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Unless otherwise provided in this Mini-RFP, by submitting a Proposal, each Proposer agrees to be bound by and comply with the terms and conditions of the Proposer’s existing PA, as amended. Any Proposal conditioned on Agency’s acceptance of terms and conditions other than those set forth in the existing PA and the requirements specified in this Mini-RFP (as they may be revised by an addendum to this Mini-RFP) will be rejected as non-responsive.

The Proposal must be organized as directed herein. Any links to external information included in the Proposal and any Proposal attachments will not be considered or evaluated, unless specified in this Mini-RFP.

2.1 PASS/FAIL

Items in Section 2 marked as “PASS/FAIL” that are incomplete (except for minor informalities), not submitted by the Bid Opening Date, or are otherwise not in substantial conformance with the Mini-RFP requirements, will be rejected as non-responsive. Proposals must comply with ALL requirements marked as “PASS/FAIL” to be considered for further evaluation.

2.2 REQUIRED ITEMS AND SCORING DEDUCTIONS

Notwithstanding the scoring deductions, to be considered responsive, the Proposer must substantially comply in all material respects with applicable solicitation procedures and requirements and the solicitation documents.

· Proposals will receive a 2% scoring deduction, based upon the total available points, for each item in section 2 marked as “REQUIRED” that is incomplete (except for minor informalities). Incomplete items must be completed and submitted within 2 business days of a request by Agency. Incomplete items must be delivered to the Purchaser as identified in the request in order to provide an appropriate time stamp. Failure to complete and deliver incomplete “REQUIRED” items within 2 business days of request by Agency shall result in Proposal rejection. Time limitations will be based upon the time of the request sent by Agency and the time of the e-mail sent in response to Agency request.

· Scoring deductions are on an average score per Proposal basis and not a deduction per evaluator. For example, if a Proposer received an average score of 92 points from the evaluation committee, a 2 percent scoring deduction would result in a Proposal score of 90. (Percentage will be rounded to either the lower number if under .5% or to the higher number if .5% or over.)

2.3 PROPOSAL DEADLINE AND SUBMISSION FORMAT (PASS/FAIL)

Agency will not accept Proposals submitted after the Bid Opening Date for this Mini-RFP in OregonBuys.

Proposals, including all attachments, forms, and other required items, must be submitted via OregonBuys. Submittal by any other means will be rejected.

Submit the following as a single PDF file.

· Proposal Cover Sheet (Attachment A)(See section 2.4.3 below)

· Key Staff Resumes (See section 2.4.5 below)

· References (See section 2.4.6 below)

Submit the Technical Proposal (responses to Scoring Criteria described in section 3.2 (see section 2.4.4 below)) as a separate PDF file.

Conflict of Interest disclosures, if any, must be submitted as a separate PDF file. See Attachment A Proposal Coversheet. The ODOT COI Guidelines and COI Disclosure Form are available on the Consultant Forms and Resources page (https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Business/Procurement/Pages/PSK.aspx under Miscellaneous Procurement Forms).

2.4.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT (REQUIRED)

One Page is defined as: one side of a single 8-1/2" x 11" page, with 12-point minimum font size for the substantive text (including text in tables) and 11-point minimum font size for the Key Staff Resume and References forms. Any page over this size will be counted as 2 pages. Any page, or partial page, tabs, indexes or table of contents with substantive text, tables, graphics, charts, resumes, etc., will be counted as 1 page.

If a Proposer submits a Proposal exceeding a set page limit, Agency will consider the pages up to the allowable page limit and discard all subsequent pages subject to that limit.

Any links to external information included in the Proposal and any Proposal attachments will not be considered or evaluated, unless specified in this Mini-RFP. The Proposer may choose how to allocate the number of pages between any sections, within the overall page limit(s).

The total combined size of all files for the Proposal, including the Technical Proposal, Cover Sheet, and any forms or attachment required in this Mini-RFP must not exceed 5 megabytes.

2.4.3 PROPOSAL COVER SHEET (REQUIRED)

The Proposal must include a completed Proposal Cover Sheet using the form Attachment A - Proposal Cover Sheet (located on the Bid Solicitation Attachments section in OregonBuys). The Proposal Cover Sheet is excluded from the page limit under section 2.4.4 below.

2.4.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (REQUIRED)

The Technical Proposal must include written responses to the Scoring Criteria set forth in section 3.2, in the order the criteria are presented in section 3.2. Technical Proposals must describe how Proposer meets the requirements that are specified in this Mini-RFP as related to the Scoring Criteria. The Technical Proposals must be clear and concise.

The Technical Proposal must not exceed 7 pages. 1 page is defined as: one side of a single 8-1/2" x 11" page, with 12-point minimum font size for the substantive text (including text in tables) and 11-point minimum font size. Any page over this size will be counted as 2 pages. Any page, or partial page, tabs, indexes or table of contents with substantive text, tables, graphics, charts, resumes, etc., will be counted as 1 page.

If a Proposer submits a Technical Proposal exceeding the set page limit, Agency will consider the pages up to the allowable page limit and discard all subsequent pages subject to that limit.

2.4.5 KEY STAFF RESUMES (REQUIRED)

The Proposal must include 5 Key Staff Resumes, each not exceeding 1 page, using Attachment C Key Staff Resumes (located on the Bid Solicitation Attachments section in OregonBuys).

2.4.6 REFERENCES - (Required)

The Proposal must include 2 References using Attachment B References (located on the Bid Solicitation Attachments section in OregonBuys).

2.4.7 OTHER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS- Reserved

2.4.8 Subcontractor Solicitation and Utilization Form - Reserved

2.5 FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS

Any statements, written or verbal, provided by the Proposer deemed by the Agency to be false or misleading will result in all or portions of the Proposal, including response to section 3.1.2 Interviews/Follow Up Questions, if any, to be rejected and removed from consideration in the evaluation for WOC award.

2.6 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL PROVISIONS

2.6.1 Agency reserves the right to reject any Proposal that is unreadable.

2.6.2 Per OAR 731-146-0150(4), in the event of a failure of an Electronic Procurement System or email system that interferes with the ability to submit electronic Proposals or to otherwise participate in the procurement, Agency may cancel the procurement or may extend the date and time of receipt of electronic Proposals by providing notice of the extension immediately after the Electronic Procurement System or email system becomes available.

Proposals meeting Pass/Fail criteria will be forwarded to an evaluation committee of at least 3 members that will independently review, score and rank Proposals according to the Scoring Criteria as set forth in section 3.2.

Local Public Agency Projects: For LPA two-tier selection projects, the evaluation committee under this section will consist solely of LPA committee members. ODOT will coordinate and facilitate the evaluation process, but not review, score and rank Proposals, interviews, follow-up questions, or references. Any reference to “Agency” in the entirety of all Section 3, means ODOT coordinating with the LPA for the evaluation process

The outcome of the evaluation process may, at the Agency’s sole discretion, result in:

(a) notice to Proposer(s) of selection or rejection for WOC negotiation and possible award;

Agency reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals and reserves the right to cancel this Mini-RFP at any time if doing either would be in the public interest as determined by Agency. Agency is not liable for any costs a Proposer incurs while preparing or presenting the Proposal or during further evaluation stages. All unreturned Proposals will become property of Agency and part of the public file without obligation to Agency.

3.1.2 INTERVIEWS/FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

Agency may conduct interviews/follow-up questions. If interviews/follow-up questions are conducted, the following will apply:

· The number of Proposers selected for interviews/follow-up questions is at the sole discretion of Agency.

· Interviews/follow-up questions responses may be evaluated by individuals that evaluated the written Proposals or by individuals which did not evaluate the written Proposals, at Agency’s discretion.

· Interview/follow-up questions scores (up to a maximum of 100 points) will be combined with the other criteria scores to arrive at a total score.

· Agency may conduct interviews/follow-up questions via teleconference, video conference, or in-person. Further details will be included with notification of time and date of interviews/follow-up questions, if conducted.

· Evaluation and scoring will be based on one or more of the following criteria:

· Understanding of Requested Services

· Technical Approach

· Project Management/Cost Effectiveness

· Proposer’s General Qualifications

· Proposer’s Capabilities

· Proposer’s Relevant Experience

· Project Team and Qualifications

3.1.3 REFERENCES

Proposers must provide 2 references (using Attachment B – References located on the Bid Solicitation Attachments section in OregonBuys) for projects where Proposer provided services relevant to the scope of services described in this Mini-RFP.

References will not be scored.

3.1.4 AGENCY CLARIFICATIONS

Agency may require any clarification it needs to understand the Proposer’s Proposal. Any necessary clarifications which are in the best interest of the Agency, may be made before the Proposer is awarded a WOC, and some or all of the clarifications, and any resulting modifications, may become part of the final WOC.

3.2 SCORING CRITERIA

Proposal scoring will be based on the criteria stated in the subsections below.

3.2.1 EVALUATION ITEM 1 – Approach MAX POINTS: 65

Describe Proposer’s vision of a successful City of Springfield TSP Update Project, and Proposer’s approach to achieving this and ODOT’s objectives in a cost-effective and timely manner.

Describe how Proposer’s team would structure the TSP Update Project: What are critical path decisions and milestones? How would Proposer sequence tasks? Which tasks are concurrent or subsequent? Describe how Proposer would coordinate work on various policy topics within the TSP development and across multiple partner agencies (Lane County, LTD, ODOT, City of Eugene, etc.)? Include the estimated timeframe to accomplish major milestones in Proposer’s structure.

Describe what Proposer believes are the most critical topics of this Project that must be addressed for a successful outcome. Which topics will take more workgroup and staff effort, and which topics may be easier?

Describe how Proposer’s team will proactively identify issues that may cause a change in project approach or product. How will Proposer’s team clarify the need and adjust effort to respond to such issues or opportunities?

3.2.2 EVALUATION ITEM 2 – Local Knowledge and Experience MAX POINTS: 40 Describe Proposer’s approach to the Professional Services for the project described in the mini-solicitation. Demonstrate knowledge and experience with Springfield and/or the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.

3.2.3 EVALUATION ITEM 3 – Project Management MAX POINTS: 45

Describe how Proposer’s team will be structured and managed to complete the Services identified in this mini-RFP. Include a list or organization chart showing all subconsultants and their proposed roles/disciplines.

Provide an example of a time when Proposer’s firm successfully managed projects that required collaboration with multiple teams and where the client delivered key work products. Include methods Proposer used to communicate and manage risk.

Describe Proposer’s approach to adjusting schedules when needed or adjusting your level of effort to meet a schedule while keeping a project within a stated budget.

3.2.4 EVALUATION ITEM 4 – Relevant Experience MAX POINTS: 45

Describe 3 projects conducted by the Project Manager, Key Staff, or both that demonstrate Proposer’s capacity to successfully complete the Services identified in this mini-RFP, including knowledge of and experience with Transportation Planning Rule requirements for major TSP updates and the land use requirements in OAR 660-012-0330. At least one project should include planning for a high traffic volume facility that directly interacts with an interstate system (e.g. I-5), which demonstrates knowledge of and compliance with state and federal transportation policies and processes while also incorporating local values and priorities.

Describe the relevance of each project to the City of Springfield TSP Update Project and Services. Include descriptions of how project constraints were addressed and resolved.

Include a brief description of project type, location, duration and objectives; a list of key project staff and their roles; tasks performed by the Proposer to fulfill the project objectives; the project budget and whether the schedule and budget were met.

3.2.5 EVALUATION ITEM 5 – Key Staff Resumes MAX POINTS: 45

Using the “Key Staff Resumes” form available at: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/business/procurement/pages/psk.aspx, describe relevant experience for the proposed Project Manager and other key staff that Proposer believes are most important to the success of this Project.

Demonstrate that Proposer’s team is structured with the appropriate expertise and talent to conduct the work required, including underserved population analysis and equitable engagement practices, land use and transportation modeling, transportation funding projections and financially constrained project list decision-making, and development code regulations.

Scoring will be based on relevance of the experience, qualifications, and technical competence of Project Manager and Key Staff proposed for use on this specific project.

Key Staff Resumes are not included in the Proposal page limit identified for this Mini-RFP; however, a maximum of 5 Key Staff Resumes may be submitted. Any resumes submitted beyond this limit will be discarded by Agency and will not be included in the evaluation. The fields on the Key Staff Resumes form may be expanded, but may not exceed 1 page per resume and must use a minimum of 11 point font for substantive text.

ODOT is requiring that the key staff resumes submitted for this mini-RFP will be the same key staff members providing Services under the resulting Work Order Contract. There will be no staff substitutions without ODOT’s written consent.

3.2.6 EVALUATION ITEM 6 – Work Samples MAX POINTS: 40

Provide 3 work samples, from one or more projects with a scope and magnitude that is similar to the Project described in this Mini-RFP. The work samples may duplicative of projects referenced in Evaluation Item 4, Relevant Experience, but this is not required. A work sample is up to 3 actual pages from an existing document demonstrating the Consultant’s ability to communicate key information and inform decisions. Each project must have been performed by at least one of Proposer’s Key Staff, Project Manager, or both, in the same or similar roles.

Each work sample may only be marked to clearly identify a specific section or sections (circle or highlight a particular area of a page); any supplemental explanation must be included within the Proposal page limit.

Work samples will be scored on applicability to Project as well as format, including: appropriate use of tables and graphics; clear, concise text; and errors, including misspellings, grammatical, and typographic.

Work Samples are not included in the Proposal page limit identified for this Mini-RFP; however, a maximum of 3 pages per work sample (up to 9 pages total) may be submitted for this criterion. Any pages submitted beyond this limit will be discarded by Agency and will not be included in the evaluation.

3.2.7 EVALUATION ITEM 7- Clarity and Conformance to proposal requirements MAX POINTS: 20 Proposers should not provide a written response to this criterion.

The Proposal must be organized in accordance with the list of Scoring Criteria categories in section 3.2. Proposals will be scored by evaluators on the following factors: Proposal format; ease of finding clear, concise responses that correlate with the order of evaluation criteria in this RFP; and Proposer's ability to follow instructions.

The total scores and selection for tentative WOC assignment will be determined as follows:

· Total Proposal Score = Total of all evaluator scores for a given Proposal, divided by the number of evaluators, minus any SCORING DEDUCTIONS received per section 2.2.

· Total Interview/Follow-up Questions Score (if conducted) = Total of all evaluator scores for a given interviewee, divided by the number of evaluators.

Final Score = Total Proposal Score plus Total Interview/Follow-up Questions Score (if conducted) plus Total Reference/Performance Scores (if conducted).

Based on Final Scores, Agency will issue an intent to award notice in OregonBuys and will negotiate the SOW, payment amount and methodology with the top ranked Proposer. If negotiations are not successful, Agency may terminate negotiations with the top ranked Proposer and may begin negotiations with the next highest ranked Proposer and so on, until successful negotiations are completed or Agency determines that cancellation of this Mini-RFP is in the best interest of the State.

3.4 AWARD REQUIREMENTS

Agency may reject a Proposal, rescind the intent to award notice, and select the next highest ranked firm for award if the apparent successful Proposer fails to provide the following required items within 7 calendar days of issuance of the intent to award notice, unless another date is specified in the intent to award notice.

3.4.1 COST DATA

Following development of the SOW, the selected Proposer shall submit a detailed Breakdown of Costs (“BOC”)) (BOCBOC-Negotiated Billing Rate (“BOC-NBR”) templates, as applicable, are available at https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Business/Procurement/Pages/PSK.aspx) with cost information as required in the WOC Assignment and Requirements Exhibit of the PA.

Agency shall reject an offer and rescind the intent to award notice if Agency determines Proposer is not responsible or if Proposer has liquidated and delinquent debt owed to the State or any department or agency of the State.

Agency will negotiate the final Statement of Work with the successful Proposer.

Statement of Services Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rules (“TPR”) were updated in 2022 to better align local transportation planning with the state’s climate and equity goals. The updated TPR apply to transportation system plans (“TSP”s) prepared by cities and counties within Oregon’s metropolitan planning areas (Albany, Bend, Corvallis, Eugene/Springfield, Grants Pass, Medford/Ashland, Portland Metro, Salem/Keizer). The updates to the TPR emphasize transportation planning and solutions which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote safety and completeness of the multimodal transportation system and seek to create a more equitable transportation system.

The TPR updates expand on previous requirements around community engagement and analysis of safety and multimodal conditions; they also include new requirements to prepare a multimodal, multi-agency financially constrained project list and to evaluate equity, transportation options, and alternatives to expanded automotive infrastructure. This statement of services highlights some of these changes; however, respondents to this RFP should be familiar with the updated TPR and associated guidance, including the TSP Guidelines and Analysis Procedures Manual prepared by the State, to inform their response.

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OVERVIEW OF SERVICES

Project Purpose and Overview of Services Consultant shall complete a major update of the City of Springfield (the “City”) Transportation System Plan (TSP) to reflect and create consistency with recent updates to the Transportation Planning Rules (TPR) (the “Project”). These updates to the TPR emphasize transportation planning and solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote safety and completeness of the multimodal transportation system and seek to create a more equitable transportation system. The updated TSP must identify an integrated network of multi-modal transportation facilities and services consistent with the TPR and adequate to support development of the City’s existing and planned land uses over a twenty-year planning horizon. The “Project Area” is the Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”) of the City.

Project Area The Project Area consists of the area inside the City’s UGB as shown in Figure 1 below:

Background Below is a summary of relevant background information that pertains to the Springfield major TSP update. The City of Springfield has completed significant relevant planning work and has existing projects currently underway that will be incorporated into the major TSP update. Planning for the UGB expansion areas and fulfilling the Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) er capita reduction and financially constrained project list requirements may be some of the more significant work needed to complete the Springfield major TSP update.

Transportation System Plan The City of Springfield adopted the 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) in 2014 as the first Springfield-specific TSP. Previously, transportation planning was completed for the metropolitan area.

In 2020, the City of Springfield and Lane County amended the 2035 Springfield TSP to implement the adopted transportation goals and policies (Chapter 3). The 2020 update included amendments to the TSP project lists and figures and the Springfield Development Code.

Land Use Assumptions Planning for the horizon year of 2050 will require making some assumptions about land use as the economic and housing elements of the Springfield Comprehensive Plan are based on a horizon year of 2030. The Residential Lands and Housing Study and Economic Opportunities Analysis were based on 2008 data and adopted in 2011 and 2016 respectively. The state now provides housing unit projections, but these will need to be allocated to the Transportation Analysis Zones (“TAZs”) as an update to the land use model. The City, in coordination with LCOG, will need to update employment projections and allocate jobs across the TAZs. Thus, in order to run the travel demand model, the City, in coordination with LCOG, must first update the land use allocation model.

Urbanizable Areas In 2016, the City of Springfield expanded the UGB in the North Gateway and S. 28th areas to meet large site employment needs. In 2019, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (“LCDC”) acknowledged the UGB expansion. In expanding the UGB, the City of Springfield did not update all the corresponding aspects of the plan. The City of Springfield has not planned the transportation system to serve these two areas, which are currently designated as Urban Holding Areas. Transportation planning for these areas will be part of this major TSP update.

Parking Regulations The City of Springfield adopted amendments to the City’s parking regulations to fulfill the revised TPR requirements. Changes to parking regulations to comply with the updated TPR went into effect on January 8, 2024 (Ordinance #6465). Street standards that address on-street parking requirements and design will be evaluated and amended as part of the street standards component of this major TSP update.

Central Lane Scenario Plan The Central Lane Metropolitan Policy Committee (“MPC”) amended the Central Lane Scenario Plan (‘CLSP’) on June 5, 2025 to comply with the scenario planning CFEC rules. The plan was appealed and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (“LCDC”) held a hearing at the April 2026 meeting.

Performance targets need to be set in the major TSP update for each reporting year for each performance measure from the CLSP. The TSP will also need to adopt pedestrian, bicycle, street and highway system investments that are consistent with the CLSP.

Climate-Friendly Areas In 2025, Springfield City Council chose to move the Glenwood Riverfront forward as a primary Climate-Friendly Area (“CFA”) and Downtown and Mohawk as secondary CFAs. The adoption of the CFAs is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2026, with the Glenwood Riverfront CFA requiring joint adoption with Lane County. The City of Springfield staff drafted multimodal transportation gap summaries for all three CFAs and ODOT staff provided draft Highway Impact Summaries for the CFAs for which they are required, Downtown and Glenwood. Full adoption is anticipated to be completed prior to the major TSP update starting.

Multimodal Inventories Springfield requested to be moved up to an earlier cohort for the multimodal inventory data collection in order to inform the existing conditions for the Springfield Active Transportation Plan. As of spring 2026, the consultants have completed the first draft of the inventory. The multimodal inventory data is expected to be complete prior to the major TSP update starting.

Springfield Active Transportation Plan (Walk and Roll Springfield) The Springfield Active Transportation Plan (Walk and Roll Springfield) will create a new Active Transportation Plan (“ATP”) for the City of Springfield to address critical gaps in the City’s active transportation infrastructure network, especially in CFAs. The City currently has an outdated 1998 Bicycle Plan and a limited number of bicycle and pedestrian projects and policies in the 2035 TSP. The ATP will replace the 1998 Bicycle Plan and supersede any conflicting projects in the 2035 TSP. The ATP is intended to comprise the bicycle and pedestrian system elements for the City of Springfield’s major TSP update.

The ATP will identify priority bicycle corridors and refine existing active transportation connections from the 1998 Bicycle Plan and 2035 Transportation System Plan that have not yet been constructed. It will produce an updated list of pedestrian and bicycle projects that includes sufficient detail for effective implementation and TPR compliance to ensure pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout Springfield.

The ATP is intended to fulfill the current transportation planning requirements for pedestrian and bicycle planning in the following Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs):

660-012-0500 Pedestrian System Planning, 660-012-0510 Pedestrian System Requirements, 660-012-0520 Pedestrian System Projects, 660-012-0600 Bicycle System Planning, 660-012-0610 Bicycle System Requirements, 660-012-0620 Bicycle System Projects, and 600-012-0630 Bicycle Parking.

The ATP expected to launch in June 2026 and is anticipated to be completed by March of 2028.

Long-Range Transit Plan Lane Transit District (“LTD”) is launching a long-range transit plan project that will fulfill the transit planning requirements to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. The major TSP update will incorporate relevant portions of the long-range transit plan to fulfill the transit element requirements.

Desired Project Objectives and Outcomes Consultant shall develop an updated TSP and draft implementing regulations that include:

· Goals, policies, performance measures, and implementing regulations that support the City’s comprehensive plans and create a safe and reliable multimodal transportation system that supports a thriving economy.

· Standards and solutions to develop a safe, efficient, multi-modal transportation network based on the needs of existing and planned land uses;

· A transportation system funding and financing strategy to support the development of the identified transportation system; and

· Analysis and documentation to demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements to support adoption of the TSP, including local criteria, Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule, and relevant Statewide planning goals and administrative rules.

The Project will support key outcomes, including:

· Identify, map, and assess existing transportation, transit, mobility, and parking facilities;

· Identify appropriate Transportation Options (“TO”), Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) techniques;

· Identify how the investments and policies in the TSP support the path to reach the regional greenhouse gas reduction target, including adopting required performance measures and targets;

· Preserve the function and capacity of transportation facilities to support the economy and movement of goods;

· Fill gaps and improve safety on pedestrian and bicycle routes to schools and key destinations;

· Review and update typical street cross sections to support adjacent land uses and safety for all modes, including revisiting the on-street parking standards and bike facility standards;

· Be consistent with applicable laws and adopted plans, including Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), Springfield Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Planning Rules, Oregon Transportation Plan, Oregon modal and topic plans including the Oregon Highway Plan, the Central Lane Scenario Plan, and City plans, policies, and ordinances.

B. TASKS, DELIVERABLES and SCHEDULE With input from the City of Springfield; Agency will negotiate the final SOW with the top-ranked Proposer(s) within the scope of what is advertised in this solicitation, for inclusion in the final Work Order Contract. Therefore, the task summaries and desired outcomes described below are provided to inform proposal development and future negotiation of the final tasks and deliverables.

Consultant understands that the City has significant tasks related to, and involvement with, the Project. As such Agency will enter into a separate Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) with the City to provide services to the Project as described in this SOW that are not the…